Yanmetin-Çeviri İlişkisi Bağlamında Orhan Pamuk’un Beyaz Kale Eserinin Rusça Çevirileri
Nuray DönmezYanmetinler, bir metnin çerçevesini oluşturarak sanat eseri olmasında bütünleyici rol oynayan, okurun metne yönelik algı oluşturmasında önemli bir işleve sahip olan, metnin çevresinde yer alan ve onunla bağlantı kuran ögelerdir. Çeviride ise yanmetin unsurları çeviri esnasında çevirmenin yolculuğuna eşlik eder ve çeviri metinle bütünleşir. Araştırmanın inceleme nesnesi Orhan Pamuk’un çerçeve hikâye tekniğiyle kaleme aldığı Beyaz Kale eseridir. Eser Rusçaya yapılan çevirileri üzerinden yanmetinsellik açısından incelenecektir. Söz konusu inceleme çevremetin unsurları özelinde ele alınacaktır. Çalışmanın amacı; Orhan Pamuk’un Rus erek kültürün edebiyat dünyasında Türkçe roman yazarı olarak çevremetin unsurları aracılığıyla edindiği yeri göstermektir. Bu unsurlar betimleyici yöntem kullanılarak ele alınmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda; çeviri eser kapaklarında kimi zaman Osmanlı döneminin ön plana çıkarıldığı ve tarihsel zemine odaklanıldığı, kimi zaman ise eserin mistik yönüne değinilerek ikiz- benzer teması ve yazarın hemen hemen her eserinde karşılaştığımız gizem ve esrar vurgusunun kapaklara taşındığı görülmektedir. Çevirmen notlarından ve çevirilerin tümünden yapılan incelemeden yola çıkarak eser özelinde çevirmenlerin genel olarak yabancılaştırma stratejisine başvurduğunu söylemek olasıdır. Her iki çevirmen de Rusça dil normlarını karşılayan bir çeviri ortaya koymuştur. V. B. Fyonova’dan sonra M. Şarov’un eserin yeniden çevirisine ihtiyaç duymasına, iki çevirmen arasındaki kuşak farkı da göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, estetik bir çeviri dilinden sade bir çeviri diline geçiş olması gerekçe olarak gösterilebilir.
Russian Translations of Orhan Pamuk’s Beyaz Kale in The Context of the Paratext–translation Relation
Nuray DönmezParatexts are the elements that play an integral role in creating the framework of a text and making it a work of art. They have an important function in the perception of the text and are located around and connect with it. In translation, paratext elements accompany the translator’s journey during translation and integrate with the translated text. This study explores the work of Orhan Pamuk, entitled White Castle using the framestory technique. White Castle is examined in terms of paratextuality through its translations into Russian. Peritext elements are specifically discussed. The aim of the study is to observe how Orhan Pamuk is perceived as a Turkish novelist in the literary world of the Russian target culture via peritext elements. The descriptive method has been used to discuss these elements. The findings reveal that the Ottoman period is sometimes highlighted, and the historical background is focused on. Moreover, the mystical aspect of the work is touched upon, and the twin-similar theme and the emphasis on the mystery that we encounter in almost every work of the author are carried to the covers. Based on the translators’ notes and the analysis of both translations, we can deduce that the translators generally apply foreignization in the translation of the work. Both translators produce a translation that adheres to Russian language standards. M. Sharov decided to re-translate the work after V. B. Fyonova’s translation because of the generation gap between the two translators and the transition from an aesthetic translation language to a simple translation language.
“Paratext,” “Supertext,” and “Intertext” are elements of the much more comprehensive concept of “text within the text.” Paratexts are the elements that contribute to the framework of a text and transform it into a work of art, play an important role in the reader’s perception of the text, and are located around the text and connected to it. J. Derrida and G. Genette introduce the concept of paratext, which is used in pragmatic studies.
In translation, paratext elements have a functional role in understanding a text and recognizing the work of the target culture reader. Considering a work’s pre-translation and post-translation processes, paratext elements appear as primary elements that witness these translation processes and form an integrity with the text. A translated work employs peritextual elements to appeal to the target reader, or to make a sound with its translation. Concerning a translated work, elements that may appear in written, visual, or auditory form outside the main text are crucial in the reception of the work in the target culture.
White Castle has been chosen as the object of the study. Translations of the work in Russian by V. B. Fyonova in 2005 and 2007 and by M. Sharov in 2016 and 2017 have been analyzed in terms of paratextual elements. The review has been explicitly discussed in terms of peritextual elements. The elements in question have been revealed using the descriptive method. This study aims to observe how Orhan Pamuk is perceived in the literary world of the Russian target culture as a Turkish novelist through peritext elements.
Paratextual elements, especially the front covers of translated works, are a part of the author’s journey of circulation in the target culture. On some covers, the Ottoman period in which the work is written is highlighted by visuals such as orientalist patterns, heroes in Ottoman costumes, mosques, and domed structures symbolizing Islam. In some covers, the mystical aspect of the work is touched upon, and the twin-similar theme and emphasis on mystery that we find in almost every work by the author are carried over to the covers. The covers also depict the power balance of the country whose translation is being published. In the four different editions examined, the translator’s name appears on the inside cover, rather than on the front or back cover. Hence, we can argue that this situation hinders the visibility of translators.
Peritexts make bridging the gap between the translated text and the target text easier. The translator’s explanatory notes strengthen the bond between the translator and the target reader, allowing them to stay in touch and communicate. During the translation adventure, the translator may have needed to consult various dictionaries (etymological, annotated, etc.) and sources (Ottoman period books, etc.). These notes bring the translator’s effort to understand and analyze the source text in detail.
In the notes explaining words like place names and titles used in the Ottoman period, and cultural elements, Fyonova’s translation have more translator notes than Sharov’s translation. Fyonova’s tendency to make herself more visible as a translator may explain her inclusion of numerous explanations. Furthermore, this could be an attempt to introduce the Russian reader to Orhan Pamuk and Türkiye, familiarize them with him, or bring him closer to the readers. M. Sharov’s translation has less translator notes is possibly because of the motive to make the author untouchable and not interfere with the work and the author.
In the translations, the “On the White Castle” section, which is at the end of the work in the source text, is not included. This particular section explains the sources and heroes the author uses in the work, his research, the writing stages, etc. It essentially provides information about the book’s foundation. Therefore, the Russian reader who is unaware of this chapter is deprived of its content and cannot recognize the author’s life traces and the shadows of the heroes who influenced the author.
Both translators have produced a translation that meets Russian language norms. Considering the generation gap between the two translators and the transition from an aesthetic translation language to a simple translation language, M. Sharov decided on retranslating the work after V. B. Fyonova’s translation. When an award-winning and successful author’s work is translated, the publishing house in the target language ensures a commercial return. Commercial concerns may be at the root of the two translators’ decision to choose Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk and translate his works into Russian.
